My point is that "record heat wave" is meaningless. It makes good copy, but it has absolutely ZERO scientific merit.

Really. Look up Andrew Wordes and tell me which is more important to be on our public consciousness....some hot weather or that.

Zero scientific merit? It's the very essence of scientific observation. Forget all the surrounding politics, temperature recordings are nothing but science. How it's interpreted, that's a bunch of craziness, but ZERO scientific merit? That just isn't the case.

Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.

Zero scientific merit? It's the very essence of scientific observation. Forget all the surrounding politics, temperature recordings are nothing but science. How it's interpreted, that's a bunch of craziness, but ZERO scientific merit? That just isn't the case.

I think you completely missed my point. The reporting of it as "record breaking" has zero scientific merit.

One of the goals of scientific measurement and observation is dispassion and objectivity about the data.

Calling it a "record" is disingenuous. The time frame is arbitrary (record for "March"), and the way "hottest" is defined is arbitrary. What is and is not reported as a record is arbitrary.

Every single day weather related records are broken. That's the nature of a sparse dataset.

Analogy:

Suppose on my 40th birthday I claim that for my New Year's resolution I will not get into fist fights. What is the meaning of a "news" story on January 2nd that "January 1st was ulthar's least violent day in recorded history"?

It has no value scientifically because the dataset is so incomplete. January 1-6 will be ulthar's least violent week, January will be the least violent month, etc. With no data prior to the arbitrary time frame of "the record," these superlatives have no basis and no importance whatsoever.

Thus, reporting them as "news" is misleading at best. This kind of news reporting survives on the ignorance and gullibility of the readership. This is junk reporting masquerading as "science."

Zero scientific merit? It's the very essence of scientific observation. Forget all the surrounding politics, temperature recordings are nothing but science. How it's interpreted, that's a bunch of craziness, but ZERO scientific merit? That just isn't the case.

I think you completely missed my point. The reporting of it as "record breaking" has zero scientific merit.

One of the goals of scientific measurement and observation is dispassion and objectivity about the data.

Calling it a "record" is disingenuous. The time frame is arbitrary (record for "March"), and the way "hottest" is defined is arbitrary. What is and is not reported as a record is arbitrary.

Every single day weather related records are broken. That's the nature of a sparse dataset.

Analogy:

Suppose on my 40th birthday I claim that for my New Year's resolution I will not get into fist fights. What is the meaning of a "news" story on January 2nd that "January 1st was ulthar's least violent day in recorded history"?

It has no value scientifically because the dataset is so incomplete. January 1-6 will be ulthar's least violent week, January will be the least violent month, etc. With no data prior to the arbitrary time frame of "the record," these superlatives have no basis and no importance whatsoever.

Thus, reporting them as "news" is misleading at best. This kind of news reporting survives on the ignorance and gullibility of the readership. This is junk reporting masquerading as "science."

ulthar, you are being anything but objective in your posts in this thread. You clearly have an emotional reaction to the story. You're almost the antithesis of objectivity. "Record breaking" simply means in terms of what has been recorded, despite what zero scientific merit you give it. Is there an agenda? Maybe. Is it as important as some other news stories, certainly not. But it was an uncommonly warm winter across much of the northern hemisphere. It was an notable anomaly within the context of recorded weather patterns. It is worthy of being reported. End of story. You're taking such a hardline and stubborn posture that you are becoming the very antithesis of objectivity.

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Yep. You are right. I'm wrong. It is OBVIOUS that I have no analytical or debating skills whatsoever and everything I say on this board is driven by either an agenda or an overblown emotional response. It's obvious because you keep pointing it out.

Yep. You are right. I'm wrong. It is OBVIOUS that I have no analytical or debating skills whatsoever and everything I say on this board is driven by either an agenda or an overblown emotional response. It's obvious because you keep pointing it out.

Yep. That's me to a tee.

In only point it out on occasion. I can take criticism, and I tend only to criticize people I think can take it. I'm beginning to reconsider in your case.

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

"March 2012 will go down as the warmest March in the United States since record-keeping began in 1895, NOAA said Monday."

Limits and boundaries clearly defined in the first sentence of the article. Everything is "arbitrary," if you want to get down to brass tacks. I don't understand your objection. Has the time period "March" changed since 1895? Or the way we measure temperature or calculate averages?

The article is saying no more than some very basic statements. Since "reliable" record-keeping began in 1895, the average temperature in the United States for the period of March is the warmest yet. The article even hedges its bets by including the statement: "Short-term weather patterns such as the one that affected the United States are poor indicators of global climate trends, however."

Datasets have to start somewhere. Six days of ulthar non-violence isn't very significant, but 117 years of weather data is less so. But it doesn't really matter, the limits of the article were clearly defined in the article.

With no data prior to the arbitrary time frame of "the record," these superlatives have no basis and no importance whatsoever.

That can't be what you mean. By that logic, all observation is meaningless because it doesn't take into account everything that was non-observed throughout the history of the universe. All science involves simplification of the natural world.

In the article, those simplifications were explicitly stated.

Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.

Personally,I don't think it has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or cowboys or ballerinas. Weather has been changing for as long as there has been a world....that's why we have "averages" and not "normals".

Personally,I don't think it has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or cowboys or ballerinas. Weather has been changing for as long as there has been a world....that's why we have "averages" and not "normals".

Agreed. However, that's also why we have statistical anomalies, and this year was certainly one.

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Personally,I don't think it has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or cowboys or ballerinas. Weather has been changing for as long as there has been a world....that's why we have "averages" and not "normals".

Agreed. However, that's also why we have statistical anomalies, and this year was certainly one.

Personally,I don't think it has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or cowboys or ballerinas. Weather has been changing for as long as there has been a world....that's why we have "averages" and not "normals".

Agreed. However, that's also why we have statistical anomalies, and this year was certainly one.

Very true.

All true, what is also true is these hysterical headlines are also being used by extreme environmentalists to push an agenda. Of course, those who don't want to conserve and just consume are also to blame for the hysteria.

Personally,I don't think it has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or cowboys or ballerinas. Weather has been changing for as long as there has been a world....that's why we have "averages" and not "normals".

Agreed. However, that's also why we have statistical anomalies, and this year was certainly one.

Very true.

All true, what is also true is these hysterical headlines are also being used by extreme environmentalists to push an agenda. Of course, those who don't want to conserve and just consume are also to blame for the hysteria.

I think if there is hysteria about most anything someone from the media will blow it up for the sensationalism. The old phrase that it sells papers doesn't exactly apply ,though. Most folks I know read news online or watch one of those 24/7 news networks.

Personally,I don't think it has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or cowboys or ballerinas. Weather has been changing for as long as there has been a world....that's why we have "averages" and not "normals".

Agreed. However, that's also why we have statistical anomalies, and this year was certainly one.

Very true.

All true, what is also true is these hysterical headlines are also being used by extreme environmentalists to push an agenda. Of course, those who don't want to conserve and just consume are also to blame for the hysteria.

I think if there is hysteria about most anything someone from the media will blow it up for the sensationalism. The old phrase that it sells papers doesn't exactly apply ,though. Most folks I know read news online or watch one of those 24/7 news networks.

The internet is far worse, it's immediacy does not allow for rebuttal or refelction.